Why do we love them?

Less bulky, better triggers, and less ugly probably wouldn't cost any more to build. Make a few tweaks and build on the reliability and durability that they already have, and I would do more than just stick to their .22s.

Oh, come on. Only the .40's are ugly. Well, the p85 is kind of ugly too.
I love them because once you are accustomed to them, they are one of the best pistols you can have.

I'll have to check out their latest, the SR9. It might be the one I have been saying they need to build.

My P89 has fired thousands of HP reloads through it with nary a bobble. My P90 is the single most accurate .45 ACP I have ever owned, and also is dependable. That is why I like them.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," spoke a sage. I like my single-six and my P95DC. Of course, the fact that I have never had a problem with single-six and only one in the P95DC after two years make them much more attractive. The Rugers have been wonderful for me. I think the company has placed the Ruger pistols and revolvers just where I am.

My P89DC certainly wont win any awards for svelte looks or technological marvels but it does what it's supposed to do. Reliable, cost effective, and built like a tank. A little work on styling and ergos would help though...

I don't like DA/SA guns, so the new SR-9 is the first Ruger centerfire auto I'd even consider.

Don't forget the backlash from Bill Ruger's support of magazine capacity limits prior to the AWB!

--wally.

Since 1987 ??? !!!!

You had better go re-read your history book and get the story straight. Also note that historically there are revolving pistols and autoloading pistols.

I like my ruger long guns and having dealt with customer service once due to some scope mount issues, needed high mounts, I'd consider their handguns.

The customer service was nice and prompt, and my long guns are quality machines. Suspect they'd do the same for their handguns. They also have a reputation of being stoutly built. I've seen some handloading data that was specific to a Ruger revolver because they can handle heavy loads.

Don't put me in the love them group. 10/22 yes MkII yes Rest of line up no. I can buy a lot of better pistols for same or little more. and no manual written on slide , better triger and not near as ugly. Well Glock might be about as ugly. But still a better pistol.

yet the American public continues to buy Rugers in large numbers.

Click to expand...

The .22 pistols, the 10/22, and the revolvers yes, but certainly not their centerfire pistols.

They are bulky because they are cast, not wrought. That makes them cheaper to make and less susceptible to thermal damage. Others, e.g. S&W, generally look more elegant, with finer shapes, but I'd always take a Ruger over them to a rough environment.

The bottom line is that Rugers are a golden solution answering reliability, ruggedness, affordability, and quality. They are not optimized for looks or high style. If I know I am going out into the unknown, I'd leave the safe queens behind and pack a KP89.

When they get approved for Cali and the "first run" issues get ironed out, I'll get an SR-9 as well.

Ruger's centerfire pistols are Durable, Reliable, Accurate, and $$$$$ friendly . Since perceived issues like having the "Manual printed on the Slide" or of being "Ugly" have no impact on any of the above attributes there are no issues along these lines as far as I am concerned.

Ruger was responsible for the single best customer experience that I've ever had with any company anywhere in any industry. Extraordinary.

Correct. I forgot to mention the lifetime warranty, courteous service, fast turnaround, and they even reimburse me for shipping expenses!

All due respect to CZ, but once I heard their warranty is only 5 years, I quickly lost interest in owning one.

75% of my handguns are Rugers, a percentage that is likely to grow.

If you don't like the inscriptions, blame the litigation lawyers and dumb legislators, not the company for trying to protect itself from nonsense.

My P90 will feed anything. I have had it out on the range and fed scroungy reloads that literally wouldn't work in any other .45 present, and the P90 ate them all without a hitch. Blocky? Yes, but they look a lot blockier than they feel, at least in my opinion. Big? Yes, but I have carried my P90 a couple of times, and it conceals just fine. Accurate? Mine puts them at point of aim, which is all I can ask for. I have had my P90 for close to 15 years now, and I just can't imagine what I would do without it. I certainly wouldn't pick any other gun over it, because I know how reliable it is. Anyway, I have one other .45, a 1911, and I like it fine, but if push comes to shove, the P90 stays.

I am relatively new to the handgun crowd. I've only been into handguns for a few years now, and I personally never saw anything attractive about Ruger autos. All those complaints mentioned are definitely HUGE factors in deciding what handgun to purchase. Why would the average Joe spend (or waste depending on how you look at it) that $400 dollars on a gun that is going to be "Bulky, ugly, unbalanced, and heavy triggered" when there are other alternatives? Why pay $400 dollars for a Ruger, when you can pay 50-100 more and choose between a Glock, XD, or M&P that doesn't have all those negative attributes that the Rugers have? Sure, all those other guns have their perks and flaws, but I'd still take any of them over a Ruger P series

I'm not saying that Rugers are THAT bad, but I'd be willing to bet that if you gave the average Joe a choice of one of the guns mentioned, 9 times out of 10 it would be the Glock, XD, or M&P. Nothing against Ruger owners, people just have different taste I guess.

Cheap (price), built like a tank, bet-your-life reliable. What's not to love?

CPshooter, your pricing is incorrect, at least in my neck of the woods. Here you can get a new P for a bit over 300, while glocks and such are well over 500. You can buy two used P's for the price of one glock or XD etc, and it does not matter that they are used because Ruger will fix any problem free of charge.

The only meaningful complaint against the P series is that they are "ugly". Beauty is subjective and thus can't be reasoned with. I personally like the ruggedness and the "handcannon" feel. Others don't. To each his own.

Their new auto may address what some people don't like about Ruger centerfire pistols.

If successful, then probably a "new generation" of autos coming.

Overall, I'd guess if the LEO market bought Rugers, you'd see a lot more civilian sales..."image" and all that!

well, I guess Blue Brick:




I like their revolvers, and I'm very partial to the Mark II. No complaints really about the 9mm/45 semis, but I can get a better firearm at about the same price by going with a CZ.

I don't prefer their auto's but I do love them, just in the 22lr/mags and also any revolver.

I actually like the look of my Ruger revolvers to the S&W, I like the Blackhawks the best, the cowboy look. Redhawks are just tough looking, but I didn't see them make any tank with smooth lines and a pretty outside.

The big blocky look is what makes Ruger a Ruger. I have no problem with it. If you want to round off all the corners do it yourself.

As for the auto's...well not so much a fan of the polymer, but I do own one, just bought an XD. They are ugly but so are a lot of other pistols. If I want a pretty pistol I'll get a 1911. Oh wait, I own 2

I like to look to Iraq to see how well a gun really holds up and performs. From firsthand knowledge, the Rugers are okay. Not bad, but not great either. They were not 100%. I do like them better than the M9 but would still prefer a Glock or XD for that type of service.